You’re probably an optimist (but we can fix that)

A magnetic jolt to the left side of your brain helps you process bad news.

The classic cliché—are you a glass half-full or half-empty person?—is actually a trick question. We're all half-full, to a certain degree. Various studies have defined a "good news-bad news" effect, in which people are less likely to incorporate bad news into their thinking compared to happier information.

But don't worry. If we can't quite turn you into a pessimist, a team of European researchers have figured out how to get people to treat positive and negative news equally. All it takes is to disrupt the activity of a small section of the brain, specifically on the left side of your head.

Most of the information we get isn't interpreted as if it's written on a blank slate. Instead, we generally use new information to update past mental models. It's this updating process where the good news-bad news effect plays out. If the news is positive—an indication we're smarter than we thought we were, or have a reduced risk of cancer—we tend to be pretty good at using it to update our beliefs. Hit people with bad news, such as an indication they're less attractive or their investments are unlikely to work out, and those beliefs are much less likely to be updated.

The authors of the paper suspected that this effect could be tied in to a specific brain region, the inferior frontal gyrus. That area of the brain had been implicated in updating beliefs in general, and had been linked to inhibiting behavior (which might be needed to tone down irrational exuberance about investments). The left side, in particular, tracks desirable errors, caused when things are better than expected. So, the authors shut it down, using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which uses magnetic fields to interfere with activity in a localized area of the brain.

To trigger the good news-bad news effect, participants were asked to estimate the probability that they would experience 40 different negative events (being robbed, getting Alzheimer's, etc.). After these estimates, the actual probabilities were given to them, which would allow them to update their mental understanding. Some of the subjects received TMS to the left inferior frontal gyrus, others to the right, and a control group was not altered.

Those who were unaltered or had the right side of their brain shut down showed the expected effect: they were much more likely to update their understanding when given news that was better than their expectations. But those who had the left inferior frontal gyrus shut down incorporated both types of news with equal skill. Compared to controls, their ability to handle bad news was significantly increased (the ability to parse good news wasn't altered).

The authors did a couple of controls to confirm this was most likely about updating probabilities. They found that there was no difference in the emotional value people attached to the information they were receiving—people were equally good or bad at updating things they cared about versus things that were less important to them. And it wasn't simply a matter of remembering some of the information better than the rest. So every indication is that they were specifically altering people's ability to process bad news.

The authors caution that this "should not be interpreted as suggesting that the disruption of left IFG function improves learning or decision-making in general." There may be good reasons that we're a bit on the optimistic side of things; they suggest that an over-reliance on negative information could cut down on some of the beneficial aspects of risk-taking behavior, and leave people perpetually stressed. At the same time, they also note that always looking on the upside of things tends to lead to stock market crashes.

The implication is that we may have already achieved a fine-tuned balance between accepting negative news and looking on the bright side that works well on average. But working well on average can still leave us at risk of getting it badly wrong on particulars.

This is the coolest thing I have heard in weeks. They found the section of the brain responsible for updating our beliefs, determined it had a good news bias, and figured out how to turn off the bias, all in one go!

I guess it's a difference in nomenclature. They're still technically solutions (specifically called gaseous solutions), but are more commonly called mixtures due to the minor interaction of solvent and solute.

I wonder if there would be a reversal of results in long term wartorn or famine regions. Individuals always exposed to bad things and learns to expect and avoid them. Most parents try to keep there children innocent as long as possible - I wonder if this has any bearing on how the brain is wired.

I'm sorry, but I can't read this article. Can someone shoot me with a magnetic ray gun on the left side of my head?

It helps a lot if you've studied statistics formally. It's even better if you've also had educational exposure to neuroscience, psychology or artificial intelligence. (My education touched briefly on all of these things, yet this article is only just within the boundaries of what I would call casual intuitive reading for me. It's not what would normally be expected for an Ars Technica article; it's more raw science, or preliminary results from an interesting study with possible implications for psychopathology; or, the study of what happens when something goes wrong with a specific region of the brain.)Ars Technica is usually oriented more toward popular science, software and electronics, isn't it; with a smattering of mathematics, physics and space science? Please note that two of my previous favourite popular science periodicals fell out of favour after they were gradually hijacked with ever-increasing proportions of biology & psychology (soft statistical science) articles (open to speculative writing or even falsification, with little opportunity for a solid objection)... I like a little exposure to biology but I wouldn't want Ars Technica to follow that course...

It would be interesting to correlate this research with previous research that has shown that people suffering from depression have less of an optimistic bias, and are actually more objective in estimating the true probabilities of bad outcomes. In short: life sucks, and then you die, so as a species we have evolved the superpower of denial.

As for the brain science, that is awesome. So is this basically eliminating confirmation bias, or is it something slightly different?

Similar. I doubt this would get rid of confirmation bias in the extremes - I would be dancing with joy if they managed to get through to a creationist. In lesser areas, though, it appears to be the same thing.

tl;dr: A vigorous palm heel to the front-left side of the head has the potential to cure the victim of optimism.

On the serious side, I wonder if they studied people who described themselves as pessimists to see if they had less activity in that particular region of the brain, or if it is reliably tied to brain chemistry.

I guess it's a difference in nomenclature. They're still technically solutions (specifically called gaseous solutions), but are more commonly called mixtures due to the minor interaction of solvent and solute.

The IUPAC is the last word in nitpicking nomenclature for chemists, which is why I linked to it (I'm a chemist). So in fact if you use any other nomenclature you would be *technically* wrong in the full and literal sense of the word. If we're going to nitpick about something we should at least get it right

I'm sorry, but I can't read this article. Can someone shoot me with a magnetic ray gun on the left side of my head?

It helps a lot if you've studied statistics formally. It's even better if you've also had educational exposure to neuroscience, psychology or artificial intelligence. (My education touched briefly on all of these things, yet this article is only just within the boundaries of what I would call casual intuitive reading for me. It's not what would normally be expected for an Ars Technica article; it's more raw science, or preliminary results from an interesting study with possible implications for psychopathology; or, the study of what happens when something goes wrong with a specific region of the brain.)Ars Technica is usually oriented more toward popular science, software and electronics, isn't it; with a smattering of mathematics, physics and space science? Please note that two of my previous favourite popular science periodicals fell out of favour after they were gradually hijacked with ever-increasing proportions of biology & psychology (soft statistical science) articles (open to speculative writing or even falsification, with little opportunity for a solid objection)... I like a little exposure to biology but I wouldn't want Ars Technica to follow that course...

You just dragged-and-dropped a nice joke half way into the Recycle Bin...

Ars Technica is usually oriented more toward popular science, software and electronics, isn't it; with a smattering of mathematics, physics and space science? Please note that two of my previous favourite popular science periodicals fell out of favour after they were gradually hijacked with ever-increasing proportions of biology & psychology (soft statistical science) articles (open to speculative writing or even falsification, with little opportunity for a solid objection)... I like a little exposure to biology but I wouldn't want Ars Technica to follow that course...

I can't even understand what you're worried about here . Could you try to rephrase that? Also, maybe tell me how long you've been reading Ars.

NB: i'm a biologist that's learned a lot of physics and earth science precisely because we like covering a wide variety of material.

The implication is that we may have already achieved a fine-tuned balance between accepting negative news and looking on the bright side that works well on average.

The paper was generalizing the situation. I want to know all the backgrounds of the participants in that study. People deal with things differnetly based on their educations, household earnings. personalities. Was he/she getting along with people? Taking their daily vitamin?

No, it's that some of us that have learned how to deal with negative news becuase of their bad experiences they had before. And not all of us on the same level of knowing how to deal with bad news.

Because we all have living on differnet paths of life styles from each others. Say for instance, I would press guessing poor people deal with stress and bad news better than the rich guys do. How? For the poor, they deal with the stress all their lives, they've put up fights for every cup of morning coffee they got that morning when the rich got themselves a smooth ride all along and everything come on easy without a hassle and need not putting up a fight to get them. See what I mean?

But when one day this rich guy was informed by the hotel manager that the electrical power systems at that hotel will be temporary shutdown for a half an hour regular maintence this guy couldn't deal with that half an hour lose of power he opened his hotel room window and jump to his death. All this because he could not deal with this tiny little bit of stress.

While the poor just say, "The hell with it. Shut the whole sh*t down."

When the research conducting in a third world vs in the well developed countries, the result might vary. But you may not agree.